Can you show the video you are watching that shows these types of sounds during WTC7?
This is a compilation of a dozen or more controlled demolitions using explosives. You'll notice they all have a distinct sound. They all use about 10 or so very loud, very distinct, equally spaced charges before the building starts to fall.
It was in Area 51, but now it’s missing. I could tell you where we moved it, but then I would have to kill you.
Regards,
Shodan
The thing that CTers never seem to get is that if there were a conspiracy and someone knew of it, they’d probably sell it! This is America, after all; what better than to make a buck off it? We’d be hearing about it.
Don’t tell me about Watergate; as someone said earlier, it was a tiny little conspiracy with a few people and it still didn’t remain hidden! There is no way that that many people would keep a secret that big. In every group you have:
- the people who think they are righteous
- the people who are righteous
- the people who stand to make money
- the troublemakers (these are the people that spoil books/movies just because they can)
And none of these people have spoken up? Clearly we’ve got it all wrong. They haven’t spoken up because they don’t actually have human motivations; we’re actually in the hands of those lizard people, and they keep secrets very well!
Yeah, that’s a problem with all of them, but this one doesn’t even get to that level. It has no reason to exist, on any level of convolution. Any of the motives they’ve proposed were already accomplished by the fire, which was going to pretty much burn unabated. Hell, if they wanted to accomplish the proposed motives, they could have just set a fire if the 9/11 attacks didn’t…umm forget I said anything. I don’t want to give anyone any goddamn ideas.
I can almost understand the “It was an inside job! They couldn’t have taken out WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon according to the official story!”
But what I can’t understand is the people who believe that 9/11 was all a big smokescreen, and the real target was WTC7. What the fuck? What’s the point of blowing up WTC7?
Insurance? Seriously?
They needed to destroy evidence? You know what the CIA does when they need to destroy evidence? They take the papers and disk drives and such, truck them to a big furnace, and chuck the evidence in. Seriously, if you want to destroy incriminating papers and computer files and alien autopsy photos, setting your office on fire is just about the stupidest method possible. My office is just a regular old software company, and we shred stuff, then the stuff gets burned. And old hard drives get physically destroyed. This is elementary stuff.
What we don’t do is set our building on fire and pray to God the building collapses. Because in a fire you’re going to have all sorts of people tromping through your secure areas, smashing open doors, papers flying everywhere, computers everywhere. It’s nonsensical. It makes no sense.
The Government/The Illuminati don’t need to blow up buildings to get rid of some old papers and computer drives. I mean, seriously.
And if the whole thing was a plot to destroy WTC7, then why not just make your cover story that a plane flew into WTC7? The whole rest of 9/11 was just a smokescreen, in a very literal sense? Of course, when I want to destroy secret papers, I don’t make a big show about it. I just quietly shred them, I don’t start setting off fire alarms at the neighboring office buildings to distract everyone while I shred them. Deliberately distracting everyone makes the opposite of sense. I mean, it’s one thing if you’re a magician on stage and everyone is watching your every move, a distraction would help you. But if you’re an Illuminati front with offices in WTC7, then who exactly is watching you like a hawk? The Russians? If your goal is to distract other factions of Illuminati, surely they’d see through such crude tricks?
Ah, so you’re Just Asking Questions™, then.
Carry on.
I remember someone put one together a few years ago but I don’t have it saved anymore unfortunately.
it was lost in the fire/collapse.
I’ll never understand why CTs make arguments so difficult for themselves.
Let’s say whoever…Silverstein, Cheney’s henchmen, whoever on the “inside” decides to secretly blow up a building. You plant a big bomb in one of the empty offices. Takes maybe 10 men sworn to secrecy. Then the CTists peddle their theory they can say, “Look! It wasn’t the planes…it was obviously a bomb!”.
But nooo, they say it was a controlled demolition. Basically hundreds of little bombs, all secretly planted and hidden, all synchronized to go off right when the planes hit.
There’s such a blindspot in that theory.
So, is this phrase sui generis to bombthefeds, or is “I’m an investigator” replacing “Hey, I’m just asking questions” as the new mantra for conspiracy theorists trying to deny being conspiracy theorists?
And it gets worse than that. If Silverstein did know about an upcoming attack, and merely exploited that as cover for demolishing WTC7, we have to ask: How did he known that WTC1 and 2 would collapse, and cause enough fires in WTC7 to cover for the demolition? What was his plan if the terrorists missed one or both buildings? What was his plan if they didn’t collapse? What was his plan if they did collapse, but didn’t cause damage as far away as WTC7? What if they did collapse and damage WTC7, but not enough to start extensive fires?
This plan has more holes in it than a golf course.
The Jews?
Ihave been seeing more of that sort of thing lately. It may be a trend, after all when your main arguing point gets mocked in meme form and perhaps they want to get away from the failures that are the leftover Loose Changers.
You guys are being trolled. Good job, OP.
Physics again.
Others have already said it, but I want to pound this nail in hard. I’ve had four different physics professors and none of them said a damn thing about burning buildings or structural stability. NONE. There was some dynamics and some thermodynamics, but it was all at a theoretical level. If you ever had a physics professor (you did say “would”), yours didn’t either.
For someone with an actual science or engineering background, seeing physics brought up in a discussion of a building collapse is a bright red flag. No one who knows anything about structures would ever start talking about physics in this kind of discussion. Talking about physics is a sign that the speaker has no clue, just a vague sense that physics is touted as the most hardcore, basic science.
You also keep claiming that it shouldn’t matter that other buildings had firefighters pumping water into them because in the end they burned completely so it has to be equivalent. No. This is a case where you’re refusing to note the physics involved. You’re specifically ignoring the capacity of water to absorb heat as it converts into steam. A fire that has water pumped into it becomes a cooler fire even if the fire continues until all combustables have been consumed.
I’ll let you pull out your physics book and calculate how much cooler. In honor of physics professors everywhere, I’ll let you assume a spherical building. Also assume each fire hose delivers 300 gal/min. For a sky-scraper, it’s probably higher than that, but it’s a decent place to start. Assume 15% conversion of water to steam.
I didn’t have the patience to slog through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up.
Paper famously ignites at 451 degrees Farenheit. It burns at a higher temperature than that. Also, if you put a bunch of burning paper in an oven, it can get even hotter. Since it’s a poor conductor of heat, it can act as it’s own oven. For millenia, iron was brought to welding heat in charcoal fires. Iron (and steel) become soft and plastic at much cooler temperatures than welding heat.
For what it’s worth,
Rob
Being proud of trolling the SDMB with 911 conspiracy nonsense is like being proud of riding your bike with training wheels.
And the structural steel doesn’t have to melt or even become soft to the point it’s plastic to begin deforming under load. Once you get a structure with that much mass moving…even a little bit…downward, it tends to start breaking stuff and having a cascading effect. This is basically what we’ve been trying (unsuccessfully) to beat into the various Truther/Loose Change Moron™/9-11 CT nutters heads for a hell of a long time (it’s certainly taking longer than it should or that anyone thought). The best visual demonstration of this I’ve seen was on a 2 hour 9/11 debunking show on, I think, the Science Channel a few years ago when they took a structural steel beam, put it under simulated load and then set a small pool of jet fuel on fire under it. It was amusing to see the 9/11 CT types wave their hands and try and counter the results, which was that the beam lost a lot of its structural support capabilities fairly rapidly and ended up failing in relatively short order…long before the small pool of jet fuel was done burning (and this didn’t take into account all the OTHER stuff that would have been burning in such an uncontrolled high rise office fire).
Have we established whether Shel Silverstein had advance knowledge of 9/11?
RM, it is against the rules to accuse other posters of being trolls. I’m giving you a warning for this. Please familiarize yourself with our rules going forward.